me i'm actually forpeople owning any type of gun. year or two ago a local gunshop raffled a browning 30 caliber. it was semi automatic with a gatling
crank. everybody in my town where i am (a college town by the way) has guns. i'm not worried because where i am is a bad place to try and start
collecting everybodys guns because we would fight until whoever wants them will say "fighting them is too hard, they wiped out our army, nato, lets
just nuke the place." a gun ban will be a bad idea.

200 years ago, the signers of constitution, with the bill of rights, were talking about muskets when they wrote in "arms"....just think that in
another 200 years, that had a "rifle" that could fire a ray that could slice right through hundreds of people at one pull of the trigger...would the
NRA still be defending that as being a constitutional right?

I suspect that the founders of this country intended for its citizens to have access to small arms comparable in capability to the military of the
citizens' respective time period. Regardless, you might want to be careful with that 'founders intent' argument, considering that it can be
applied to almost *anything* invented since 1789. If you allow that precedent to be set, it will not be long before some know-nothing politician
applies it to a freedom that you actually do care about.

Originally posted by jimmyx
200 years ago, the signers of constitution, with the bill of rights, were talking about muskets when they wrote in "arms"....just think that in
another 200 years, that had a "rifle" that could fire a ray that could slice right through hundreds of people at one pull of the trigger...would the
NRA still be defending that as being a constitutional right?

200 years from now the progressives will have won because of apathy, and we will have to take out permits and pay a tax on farting.

I wonder how many people world wide have died because they willingly gave up the right to defend themselves?

As a person who believes in the Rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights...I support the Rights of the U.S. Citizen to Remove any
Government of the U.S. that no longer abides by the Constitution. This was the main reason behind the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS as it is the DUTY of the
American Citizen to remove such a Government and by using the mechanisms outlined in the Constitution...to install a New Government that abides by the
Constitution.

Using this reasoning one could make a case for Public Ownership of Full Automatic Weapons...but let's be reasonable. Since the U.S. Military is an
ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE and swears their allegiance to THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES....NOT the Government or it's Leadership but the
CONSTITUTION...it is Highly Unlikely that our Military would EVER back a Government that does not follow the Constitution.

Knowing this to be a Very High Probability it is reasonable to assume that banning weapons that could be modified to fire on Full Auto is not placing
our Freedoms in jeopardy. It is my opinion that the threat is sufficient to risk the banning of a type of weapon. Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
I would have no issue of a person owning an Assault Rifle it it was IMPOSSIBLE to convert it to being able to fire on Full Auto. Split Infinity

The only thing is, 99%+ of the people buying them will never even attempt to convert them. You'd really just be punishing the overwhelming majority
because a small handful act of idiots. I can't justify that. I think the solution is to go after the small minority of offenders, rather than
turn all 20-30 million of the law-abiding people who own assault rifles into offenders.

As a person who believes in the Rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights...I support the Rights of the U.S. Citizen to Remove any
Government of the U.S. that no longer abides by the Constitution. This was the main reason behind the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS as it is the DUTY of the
American Citizen to remove such a Government and by using the mechanisms outlined in the Constitution...to install a New Government that abides by the
Constitution.

Using this reasoning one could make a case for Public Ownership of Full Automatic Weapons...but let's be reasonable. Since the U.S. Military is an
ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE and swears their allegiance to THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES....NOT the Government or it's Leadership but the
CONSTITUTION...it is Highly Unlikely that our Military would EVER back a Government that does not follow the Constitution.

Knowing this to be a Very High Probability it is reasonable to assume that banning weapons that could be modified to fire on Full Auto is not placing
our Freedoms in jeopardy. It is my opinion that the threat is sufficient to risk the banning of a type of weapon. Split Infinity

Google is your friend.

I will say it again with a 200 dollar tax stamp you can legally own fully automatic weapons in the US. It has been
this way for a long time please look it up before you speak.

Many people in the US legally own fully automatic weapons most gun lovers already know this FACT.

Look...I am conflicted by my own post. Still...the fact remains that people are converting and using these weapons for various criminal activities
and I would not support such a BAN if Gun Manufacturers simply made it impossible to modify Assault Weapons that are Semi-Auto to Full Auto.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
Using this reasoning one could make a case for Public Ownership of Full Automatic Weapons...but let's be reasonable. Since the U.S. Military is an
ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE and swears their allegiance to THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES....NOT the Government or it's Leadership but the
CONSTITUTION...it is Highly Unlikely that our Military would EVER back a Government that does not follow the Constitution.

I suspect that you're right, but that's no guarantee.

That said, I do not base my position on 'assault rifles' on that premise. I simply see them as rather low risk. Looking at the homicide statistics,
rifles of all types are in the single percentages as far as firearm type used. Assault rifles get the attention from the media idiots, but handguns
are far and away the weapon of choice for violent crime. And no, I don't believe there should be a handgun ban, either. We need to do a better job
of identifying people who are problems and keeping firearms out of their hands, rather than punishing everyone.

The Main Issue is the import of Chinese Built AK's that are easy to modify. The U.S. has been flooded with these imports as it is difficult to
modify an AR-15. If the AK's were not allowed to be imported...the problem would be drastically diminished. Split Infinity

Look...I am conflicted by my own post. Still...the fact remains that people are converting and using these weapons for various criminal activities
and I would not support such a BAN if Gun Manufacturers simply made it impossible to modify Assault Weapons that are Semi-Auto to Full Auto.

If they did this I would have no issue. Split Infinity

Yea what exactly are you saying. Are you talking about slide fire stocks? Or about new parts to put in a gun to make it fire full auto? Or are you
talking about garage mods?

Education is a good thing I think it might be lacking in your argument. No offense but I kinda read the gun forums alot and criminals by and large do
not modify to fire full auto. Most crimes are with semi-auto.

And legal gun owners who want full auto buy the tax stamp and factory made full auto or select fire. Also the parts to make a gun fire full auto are
covered under the class 3.

I will say it one last time it is legal to own fully automatic weapons in the US. You need a 200 dollar tax stamp and a background check. Many many
people own fully automatic weapons LEGALLY.

You are correct but to Ban Handguns would only mean that the Criminals would have them. Statistics show that any Community that has a large
percentage of Legal Handgun Owners has a much lower percentage of Violent Crime than Communities that do not. Split Infinity

I will not describe how to modify an AK or any other Assault Rifle here as that would be irresponsible. Still the large number of Chinese made AK's
are not that hard to modify. I have fired just about every weapon one could think of and if I was Hunting...there is no reason for me to be carrying
either an AK or AR-15. Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
The Main Issue is the import of Chinese Built AK's that are easy to modify. The U.S. has been flooded with these imports as it is difficult to
modify an AR-15. If the AK's were not allowed to be imported...the problem would be drastically diminished. Split Infinity

You know what? I actually would not have a huge problem with a ban on imported AK-47s as long as it did not impact the domestic firearm industry or
the sales of the firearms they produce. As long as a person could still buy a made in the USA AR-15, I could live with it.

I will not describe how to modify an AK or any other Assault Rifle here as that would be irresponsible. Still the large number of Chinese made AK's
are not that hard to modify. I have fired just about every weapon one could think of and if I was Hunting...there is no reason for me to be carrying
either an AK or AR-15. Split Infinity

And how many crimes do we see with this type of weapon.

My point is this you are arguing pro gun and you don't even understand the LAWS.

Because if you did understand the LAW you would not be saying people should not own fully automatic weapons. You are actually for more gun laws not
less.

Education is the best weapon. Knowing the laws so you do not break them. And knowing your rights is key.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.